Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?

If it's false by direct observation then what novelty have you or anyone observed to have arisen? Adaptable? how so? Do they develop fins, eyes, etc.?
They don't of course; not merely because there is insufficient time for us to observe such change..but because there is no known method to provide for such change...

There are plenty of known mutations that tweak the body plan of an organism. Adding/removing digits, teeth, and vertebrae come to mind. Every time a creationist seems to be talking reasonably about the ToE they always seem to end up bringing up this hopeful monster strawman of it. You are also false to assert that there is no known method to provide the change given enough time. We have watched unicellular organisms evolve colonialism. That in and of itself it the most drastic change you could ever want to witness as evidence for evolution.But in the end, your reply completely avoided the thesis of my original post. In the context of searching for the "drastic" beneficial mutation, you have to account for the evolutionary history of the organism. Pigs are simply not going to grow wings out of their back and fly.What is drastic in context though is the hemoglobin C allele. By its existence, the assertion of no information gain is immediatly refuted. Maybe creationists simply don't consider a whole new kind of blood to be all that big of a deal. If it is not wings, a third eye, etc, to them it is not a "beneficial" mutation.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Can you provide any evidence that any of these drosophila experiments were actually designed to produce 'a more successful fruit fly'. This is a popular bit of anti-evolution clap trap which ignores the fact that most of the large scale mutational screens, such as the seminal Nusslein-volhard and Wieschauss screen (Nusslein-volhard and Wieschauss, 1980), on drosophila were specifically performed to identify genes which were embryonic lethals or for other equally apparent large scale phenotypic effects and in most cases were the product of induced mutations by crude methods such as radiation exposure of treatment with mutagens.If you think that is not the case then please provide some references for these drosophila experiments which were meant to result in 'a more successful fruit fly'.TTFN,WK

These are examples of duplicating and or losing existing information - no new information is added I wasn't raising the fins, eyes, argument to erect a strawman but rather to point out that the simple organisms you are talking about do not in fact develop a different more beneficial body plan whether through antibody-resistance or what have you...So you believe that current evolutionary change is subject to the restraints of the evolutionary history of the organism? If so , you are concluding (a priori) that the mechanism of change has been altered/deactivated. Beyond that, you are assuming that there is a common mechanism of change between organsisms today and the supposed unicellular to colony" transition - which by the way is indicative of nothing more than symbiotic activity, not increased complexity...I still assert that no mechanism has been found to account for the production of novel body plans or organs...

Please could you tell us exactly how to measure genetic information?TTFN,WK

As ToE is so quick to point out - evolution is an unguided proccess; It goes where it goes - there's no conscious effort guiding it...Regardless of intentions of the experimenters, you would reasonably assume that if mutations are indeed the mechanism responsible for introducing new body plans and organs, the drosophilia experiments would confirm that expectation - since you are essentially speeding up the otherwise unobservable proccess by mass accumulating mutations...This is not what you see however; While existing body parts are altered/relocated on the body, no new information resulting in new body plans or organs are discovered/made.

So what you are saying is that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims and you are just making this shit up as you go along, fair enough. *Bzzzzt
Sorry our survey says you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the processes of mutation. The source of the incremental changes which lead to complex adaptations in the course of evolution are not exposure to massive doses of ionising radiation or mutagenic chemicals. Thank you for playing.Now how about that definition of genetic information, you might still win the consolation prize.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

It fascinates me how whenever someone doesn't want to respond to a post they can't answer they simply ignore it or try to devalue you it with snobbery..So how 'bout you indulge me in explaining the actual processes of mutation. Then we'll eliminate as many false conceptions as we have to to establish common understanding..

Then you have a very foolish and useless definition of information. Maybe you could change my mind by stating the actual defintion of information you are using to come to that conclusion. Well that is good because I never said that they would develop more body plans. Therefore you are simply admitting that you are talking about something else entirely. While notable that you would fess up to that, it does not raise my confidence that you are reading my posts with the intent to understand them.I simply said that they are much more adaptable which is indicative of a greater receptability to beneficial mutations because they are very primitive. A mutation in bacteria that confers resistence to extreme environments may in a more complex creature cause death. Of course. If that was not true then we might expect at any moment now a child might be born with wings. You are simply and obviously not understanding what I am saying. Please try harder or ask for clarification on the points you feel you may be unclear about. The mechanism is the same, mutation plus selection. The constraints are very different though and part of those constraints is the existing phenotype of the organism. A pig simply will not mutate wings on its back. It is constrained by its evolutionary history to have no extremeties on its back that could potentially mutate into wings. Why does this seem like such a hard concept to grasp? Once again you are going to have to give us your definition of complexty that allows you to come to this rediculous conclusion. You see to me, the adaptation of a heritiable trait that allows a unicellular organism to become a multi-cellular organism is a MASSIVE change in complexity. It will remain your bare and ignorant assertion in the direct face of observed evidence to the contrary.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Please explain to me how mutations plus selection have been observed to result in new body plans or organs...

In the context I meant greater complexity to refer to the complexity required to achieve a new body plan

Simply ignore it like the 2 times you have ignored my request that you furnish us with either a definition of or a method for measuring genetic information? There is another thread for this very purpose, Mutation and its role in evolution: A beginners guide.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

I can't do that to your satisfaction without your definition of information or complexity.In the real world where we use well understood and useful defintions of information and complexity, the examples I have already provided are sufficient.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

mjfloresta has introduced a new hypothesis: the Body Plan hypothesis. This deserves a closer look.According to the hypothesis, species can evolve within a given 'body plan' but will not evolve from one 'body plan' to another. No mutations that science has observed to date validate the theory of evolution because none have changed the 'body plan' of a species.This is close to becoming a real proposal that can be validated or falsified scientifically. All mjfloresta has to do is define body plan in a way that may be objectively measured.Let's put the question into focus with an example.A genetic mutation in our own species occurs when one person grows wisdom teeth and another does not. mjfloresta's argument is that this proves nothing about evolution because, wisdom teeth or no wisdom teeth, the human 'body plan' remains the same.It follows, then, that whatever a 'body plan' is, the genes affecting these four teeth are not part of it.How many teeth would have to change, then, before we can say the homo sapiens body plan has evolved? Six teeth? Eight teeth? All of them? Where's the boundary?

---

Archer

You have absolutely no idea who you are talking to, do you? Wounded King is a scientist, a biologist. He knows his stuff. He also knows how to do scientific research. He has probably forgotten more about evolution than you'll ever know.It probably fascinates him how an obvious layman such as yourself can be so ignorant as to presume to lecture a post-doc biologist about... biology. You are an amazing specimen, MJ.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.